Announcement: IR V4.0.3 Beta

Discussion forum for JP1 software tools currently in use, or being developed, such as IR, KM, RemoteMaster, and other misc apps/tools.

Moderator: Moderators

Dabbith
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 2:46 pm
Location: Anonia, CT

Post by Dabbith »

Btw, I know we can be a bit demanding at times. I remember when I added features to IR and felt "attacked," but we're all just trying to make the project as user friendly and stable as possible. Thanks for taking the hit to give us all a better user experience.

And so, on with the next volly :D

In the special protocols dialog, it would reduce user errors if you couldn't choose a button for a subsequent step of a macro if you haven't filled in the previous step. If you do it now, you get a list index out of bounds error. It would also make it much easier to test the number of steps used in the macro so you could limit the user right away instead of when clicking OK. This would also mean that you shouldn't be able to clear a step in the middle of a macro, only change it. Only the last step should clearable.
e34m5
Posts: 675
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2003 1:04 pm
Location: Atlanta

Post by e34m5 »

Dabbith wrote:
The SP dialog has the exact same properties as the others. I see no diference.
The difference is that it is resizeable. Most of the other dialogs in IR are fixed size dialogs. As such, they skin properly in Windows XP. All of the resizeable dialogs including ones created by Mark P (like Import) behave this way, so it's nothing you did wrong, it's just a byproduct of having a resizeable window. So it's not a bug.
I did this because of all the complaining about XP..I do not favor resizable dialogs...hence the term dialog vs screen
e34m5
Posts: 675
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2003 1:04 pm
Location: Atlanta

Post by e34m5 »

Dabbith wrote: In the special protocols dialog, it would reduce user errors if you couldn't choose a button for a subsequent step of a macro if you haven't filled in the previous step. If you do it now, you get a list index out of bounds error. It would also make it much easier to test the number of steps used in the macro so you could limit the user right away instead of when clicking OK. This would also mean that you shouldn't be able to clear a step in the middle of a macro, only change it. Only the last step should clearable.
This shouldn't be an issue...the code simply ignores blanks..you can select the first cell and last cell and get the same results.

I have uploaded another build with yet more tweaks....3/22/2003 10:57AM
Dabbith
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 2:46 pm
Location: Anonia, CT

Post by Dabbith »

Getting much closer.

There's a bug where if you don't fill in the first step of a ToadTog or LKP, it doesn't update the keymove data.

There's also still a bug with the Shift/XShift checkboxes. You can toggle from xShift to Shift, but not the other way around (without explicitly clearing shift).
e34m5
Posts: 675
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2003 1:04 pm
Location: Atlanta

Post by e34m5 »

Dabbith wrote:Getting much closer.

There's a bug where if you don't fill in the first step of a ToadTog or LKP, it doesn't update the keymove data.

There's also still a bug with the Shift/XShift checkboxes. You can toggle from xShift to Shift, but not the other way around (without explicitly clearing shift).
Of fixed both of these...the Shift box was a classic copy and paste..the other was simply a matter that I never expected the first cell to be empty

See the new build 12PM
Dabbith
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 2:46 pm
Location: Anonia, CT

Post by Dabbith »

Good, we're really starting to get to the obscure stuff now. If you have a keymove of a special protocol with device type and setup code properly filled in and garbage in the EFC box, you get a list index out of bounds error. It doen't crash, but it would be nice if a more friendly error message appeared.
Dabbith
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 2:46 pm
Location: Anonia, CT

Post by Dabbith »

It would also be nice if the notes text box had a scroll bar if the note was more than one line. If that's not easy to do, I'd limit the note to one line.
Nils_Ekberg
Expert
Posts: 1689
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 2:08 pm
Location: Near Albany, NY

Post by Nils_Ekberg »

Dabbith wrote:It would also be nice if the notes text box had a scroll bar if the note was more than one line. If that's not easy to do, I'd limit the note to one line.
IMHO - I think we should avoid "more code to debug" if possible. I just made the beginning of the note more definitive and put the extraneous information after that. If I need to see the whole note I just double click on it and see it in the edit box.

As there are no serious bugs I suggest we vote on getting this out so Paul can move on to other requests he has. Since he has put a significant amount of time into getting functionality in there that was sorely needed he can stabalize it, get it out, and start gathering these GUI type requests for a future release.
Dabbith
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 2:46 pm
Location: Anonia, CT

Post by Dabbith »

Nils,
I was actually speaking of the notes text box on the keymove dialog. It should be a simple property to turn on the scroll bar, not extra code. If it's not, then that box should be limited to one line. Right now if there's more than one line, there's no easy way to know the extra text is there and users may complain they "lost" their notes if they enter extra lines.

I also have one more small request. Could you add a space (or dot) before irnotes.ini ? It would make the file names much easier to read.
DGG
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2003 10:56 am

Post by DGG »

I agree with Nils. This series of posts is getting way too long anyway.

Paul, based on your response to my earlier post and someone else's suggestion, I've taken a close look at the behaviour of IR's dialogs. The SPB and Keymove dialogs are different. First re the "border problem", the blue border disappears from the Keymove dialog when it is resized at the time the vertical scrollbar appears. Once it's gone, at border never reappears (until IRbeta is restarted). Presumably, the lack of a blue border on the SPB dialog is a consequence of it being "born" with a vertical scrollbar.

Most (but not all) the other IR windows/dialogs use a resizing mechanism whereby the depth of their entry/display windows is changed while the critical buttons are maintained in view. Since the whole SPB dialog can now be contained on the screen, thanks to you reconfiguring some of its elements, adopting the approach of the other dialogs (in a furure release) seems at least worth exploring. For the time being, now that its possible, it would seem helpful if the whole SPB dialog was displayed on opening.

Re my earlier button focus comment, I now see that the current operation is consistent with the rest of IR. As for my "not ideal" comment re the 3 shift keys, the current operation is adequate. I was reacting to keys being enabled when they had no function - a topic that may already have been discussed.

Thanks for all your efforts,
Don
The Robman
Site Owner
Posts: 21886
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 9:37 am
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Post by The Robman »

Nils_Ekberg wrote:As there are no serious bugs I suggest we vote on getting this out so Paul can move on to other requests he has.
There's still the issue of why a couple of us Win98SE users can't use this version of IR to actually communicate with our remotes.

That would need to be resolved before this version could be made official.

This is the error message I'm getting...

Image
Rob
www.hifi-remote.com
Please don't PM me with remote questions, post them in the forums so all the experts can help!
Dabbith
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 2:46 pm
Location: Anonia, CT

Post by Dabbith »

I seem to remember a similar problem when I was working with IR. I think it's relatd to compiling with the Dev conditional define, but I'm not positive. I know that section of source has changed some since I last looked at it. With Dev defined it always tries to install the driver even though it's only needed on NT and up.

Try going to Project->Options, Directories/Conditionals and removing Dev, then compile a binary.
Nils_Ekberg
Expert
Posts: 1689
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 2:08 pm
Location: Near Albany, NY

Post by Nils_Ekberg »

The Robman wrote:There's still the issue of why a couple of us Win98SE users can't use this version of IR to actually communicate with our remotes.

That would need to be resolved before this version could be made official.
Forgot about that one Rob.. I guess because I see that same error once in awhile when I have multiple iterations of IR open.

Hopefully the compile issue resolves this.
e34m5
Posts: 675
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2003 1:04 pm
Location: Atlanta

Post by e34m5 »

DGG wrote: Paul, based on your response to my earlier post and someone else's suggestion, I've taken a close look at the behaviour of IR's dialogs. The SPB and Keymove dialogs are different. First re the "border problem", the blue border disappears from the Keymove dialog when it is resized at the time the vertical scrollbar appears. Once it's gone, at border never reappears (until IRbeta is restarted). Presumably, the lack of a blue border on the SPB dialog is a consequence of it being "born" with a vertical scrollbar.
I really don't see this...must be an XP thing
Most (but not all) the other IR windows/dialogs use a resizing mechanism whereby the depth of their entry/display windows is changed while the critical buttons are maintained in view. Since the whole SPB dialog can now be contained on the screen, thanks to you reconfiguring some of its elements, adopting the approach of the other dialogs (in a furure release) seems at least worth exploring. For the time being, now that its possible, it would seem helpful if the whole SPB dialog was displayed on opening.
Actually the only form that was resizable was the main IR form. At the request of some folks I made the keymove and SP form resizable.
Re my earlier button focus comment, I now see that the current operation is consistent with the rest of IR. As for my "not ideal" comment re the 3 shift keys, the current operation is adequate. I was reacting to keys being enabled when they had no function - a topic that may already have been discussed.
The keys are not enabled unless the function in question is Shiftable

I changed the Dev flag like Dabbith suggested..however that flag had been set when I downloaded the source code.

I also added a bunch of code to check for valid stuff like a protocol being available in the users config, checking the parameters in the function box to make sure the are properly formated, etc, etc...

Added scroll bar to the notes field as well.

Check out the 3:30PM build I just uploaded.
Nils_Ekberg
Expert
Posts: 1689
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 2:08 pm
Location: Near Albany, NY

Post by Nils_Ekberg »

OK, I am sold. I tried breaking everything I broke before and it worked fine

Now we just need to wait for the report on the driver load problem from the Win98SE users.
Post Reply